Okay first off, no swearing at me in the comments. If something in this post (besides me being agnostic) offends you and you tell me why, I'll consider editing it out. Second of all, I will be going through the rest of the bible, so if you want to refute something I say here by using another book/chapter/whatever, feel free, but I'll probably ignore that comment until I get to that part. Sorry. Now, onto the discussing!


First chapter, God creates...everything. And sees that it is good.

Second chapter, Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, everything's groovy.

Third chapter is where it gets interesting. Oh, and where I start thinking that God's a bit of a bastard. Eve gets taken in by a serpent (which apparently had legs at this point in time, since its curse after God finds out is to slither on its belly forever), eats from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (no mention of apples), and tells Adam to eat as well, which he does. Then they're all "Oh no, we're naked!" so they go get fig leaves and cover themselves up. And then God comes walking through the Garden and Adam apparently hides because he's naked, even though he just covered himself up (apparently that tree only deals with good and evil, not intelligence). God realizes that they disobeyed him, Adam pins all the blame on Eve, and Eve blames the serpent. God then curses the snake with the aforementioned belly-crawling, and makes it an enemy of Eve, with both their offspring to be enemies forever. Then he curses Eve and all women to come to feel large amounts of pain during childbirth and says that she is to be ruled over by her husband. Then he turns to Adam, curses the ground, and tells Adam that he will have to toil all his life for food. Of and there's something about becoming dust, too. And then he kicks them both out of the Garden. As too why he's a bit of  a bastard, I believe there's a saying somewhere about not punishing the son for the sins of the father? And even if there's not, I still think it's mean of him to do it.

Fourth chapter, God hates farmers, but loves shepherds. No seriously, it's the story of Cain and Abel. Cain works the soil and Abel tends flocks. When they give some of the fruits of their labor to God as an offering (Cain with actual fruits, Abel with meat), God likes Abel's offering and not Cain's. And when God notices that Cain is upset, he doesn't know why. So Cain kills Abel, which I think is a bit of an overreaction. God is mad, and dooms Cain to be a "restless wanderer." Cain whines a bit, and then God says that anyone who kills him will suffer vengeance seven times over. Très harsh if you ask me. But then Cain goes on and finds a girl (and where did she come from? She's not one of Adam and Eve's kids.), marries her, and has some kids, who have kids, who have kids, one of whom has two wives. This guy also has kids, and apparently kills a young man for injuring him. Then it jumps back to Adam and Eve who have had a son named Seth "in place of Abel, since Cain killed him."

Okay, first of all, this has nothing to do with abortion. This is about the lifting of the headscarf ban at Turkish university, which I applaud. Now, I'm not an expert on Turkey - everything I know, I got from my AP Euro class and this article, but apparently, people there are worried that this is a step towards Sharia law and radical Islam, and that it's against women. ... Hold on a second. Allowing (not requiring) women to choose to cover their hair is anti-feminist?

"Wearing the headscarf means accepting that as a woman you are different from birth, that you are a second class citizen," is the opinion of a feminist sociology professor at one of the universities. Admittedly, she probably knows more on the subject than I do, considering I am American, agnostic, and know very few Muslim women personally, but two Muslim woman I do know certainly don't seem to consider themselves second class citizens - and I've never seen one of them without her headscarf. (The other didn't start wearing one until a year or so after I met her.)

As for stepping towards radical Islam and separating men and women, that's certainly not what has to come out of this. It can, sure. But by telling the women not to wear headscarves, their rights are being abridged almost as much as if they were forced to wear the headscarves. Granted, someone will have to keep an eye on things to make sure that no one is being pressured into wearing it, but other than that, I don't see what the big deal is. maybe it's just because I'm not there, but I think that the now-repealed ban was anti-feminist.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. ;)

Yes, I realize it's been more than a day. You'll learn not to rely on terms like 'tomorrow.' They're more like guidelines, than true statements of fact. Anyway, now to look at this article. Skip down a bit, since the first bit is (as far as I know) accurate and (mostly) reasonable. The first paragraph is annoying and goes a little overboard, but I'll let that skate by. Go down to where she says, "OK, hold on a minute." She starts talking about HPV. No mention of Gardasil (the vaccine for HPV). Also, I'd like to know where she got the "half of sexually active college women" stat. I'm talking unbiased source and a representative sample. I'll let the medical stuff pass, since I have no idea if that's accurate - I'm willing to accept that it is until someone proves me wrong.

...Well, except for the infertility. WTF? She better be talking about STIs that cause sterility, because otherwise, I'm not buying it. And it's been a while since 8th grade sex ed (when the instructor talked about diseases), but I'm pretty sure the STIs that cause infertility are the ones that can be protected against by using a condom. Guess what? If sex ed class are abstinence only, condoms aren't going to be used as often, or will be used incorrectly. Whoops. Bit of a problem there, huh? And the cervical cancer bit is HPV again, so I'd like to repeat that there is an HPV vaccine, complete with painful shots and annoying commercials.

She adds a bit on the end of that paragraph about having sex early will lead to more sexual partners in a lifetime, and all I have to say is that it is no one's business how many partners I (or anyone else) has, as long as they're all STI-free.

Next paragraph down she talks about "recent surveys." What surveys, who conducted them, and how were they conducted? Statistics lie all the time. Incomplete protection from herpes is a consideration, granted. But guess what? The protection is still incomplete even if the participants are in their thirties or older. You do what you can, and trust your partner to tell you if they've ever had herpes. Aside from that, it's impossible to completely protect yourself, even if both participants are virgins, since you don't need to have sex to get herpes.

Then Dr. Grossman cites research without saying where it's from and asks Alice to cite a study to justify her advice. Sure. You first. And about that research, did it include any looks into how our society treats "sexually active female adolescents," particularly ones with multiple partners? (Slut/stud dichotomy) Don't you think it's possible that they're depressed because they've been told their whole life that they're not supposed to have sex and enjoy it?

You're a psychiatrist, Dr. Grossman. Of course the people in your office have problems - that's why they're there! And common sense has always given way to social agendas - that's nothing new. I don't agree with your assessment of the social agendas are the problem. "Abortion is benign?" Show me one group that says that. Planned Parenthood certainly doesn't. See here, particularly the sixth post for this particular point, but the whole thing is fascinating. You might have to be logged into Facebook to see the whole thing, but here's a quote of the most relevant part: "If they do decide to go through with an abortion, they come back for a medical consult - this is where the actual abortion process is described to them. We don't lie to them - we tell them it can be very painful, physically and emotionally. We tell them it is common to feel guilty and depressed afterwards. We tell them what is going to happen to their fetus."

"Women are just like men" was addressed in my last post, and sex is a recreational activity under certain circumstances.

Alcohol impairs judgment. Yes, people will have "hook-ups" when they're drunk, along with various stupid things. And Dr. Grossman says, "Indeed, biology indicates that a young woman would be wise to wait until early adulthood, when she is more likely to be physically and emotionally mature." And what about young men? Do we not care about them, or are they tougher than girls and more able to cope with physical and emotional turmoil? 'Cause I don't buy that. Cut the double standard, please. And I have a suggestion in response to your suggestion: I suggest you look into that a little more, because I think you're wrong.

"A mountain of research highlights the differences between male and female." Seriously? Across cultures? Because otherwise, it's probably not biological; it's societal. And you don't actually cite the studies, Dr. Grossman. You just mention them and continue. Why is that? And I direct your attention to the link above from the young woman who volunteers at a Planned Parenthood clinic. The women requesting an abortion are informed of what will likely happen, physically and emotionally.

She mentions the men! Briefly and she doesn't really say much, but she does mention them! Maybe there's hope for her yet!

"I'm a woman with a mission: to scrutinize our sexual health education and remove all traces of ideology - of any type." Is that really your mission, Dr. Grossman? Or is it to keep young women protected from themselves until they find a man who can continue protecting them from the world - since women are of course incapable of making decisions about their own bodies and lifestyles.

Dr. Grossman, thanks for helping out girls who seek your counsel. But leave the rest of us alone.

(ETA: I suppose it helps if I turn off the privacy filter, huh?)

These articles just beg to be heaped in several layers of scorn and incredulity that people actually believe this shit. Thankfully, many others have already posted responses to the articles, but I feel the need to add my own. Deal with it.

I'll start with the article I read first: "Dying to date." And yes, I'm aware that "Misery U" was published first. I don't care. This is my LJ, and I'll do things the way I want. Anyway, about the article. I have a problem with the very first line: "If you're younger than 30 or maybe even 35, you may not recognize the word "date" as a verb." Really? 'Cause I could swear that my birth certificate tells me I'm 18, and I not only recognize the word "date" as a verb (in some cases), but I've even been known to use it as a verb. Of course, I've also used the word "homework" as a verb, but that's neither here nor there.
 
Actually, the second line isn't much better. Premarital sex did exist before the sexual revolution. Seriously. There were a lot of babies born less than nine months into a marriage throughout history - at least throughout history in in times and locations where having a child out of wedlock was considered shameful. And dating wasn't always a prelude to marriage: people broke up with girlfriends and boyfriends and arranged marriages did (and still do) occur.

Second paragraph gets by mostly clean. Yes, there are college, high school, and even middle school students having sex. And yes, some of them do jump straight into the sack with their partner. I do quibble over the word "prevalent." Sorry, maybe my experiences are unusual, but while it is certainly present, the majority (especially in middle and high school) prefer to date before sex. Even in college, the word "slut" is still used often enough that most women don't jump into bed with multiple guys in a row. A one-night stand or three, sure. Repeated one-night stands with no long-term relationships, not likely.

Third paragraph: Ew. Thankfully, if anyone I know does that, I wasn't informed.

Skipping down to where she starts talking about oxytocin, if it's released by both men and women during sex, why are the consequences worse for women? Is it (*gasp*) because men are taught that lots of sex is good, normal, and healthy? And maybe, just maybe, it's more of a societal issue than a biological one? Crazy idea, I know. But hey, that's what they said about relativity.

Paragraph after that, Ms. (Mrs?) Parker says, "Feminists don't much like the oxytocin factor, given the explicit suggestion that men and women might be physically and emotionally different." Anyone who doesn't acknowledge that men and women are physically different is an idiot. If men and women were the same physically, I would have a penis. News flash: I don't. As for emotionally different, perhaps slightly on a biological level, but most of the differences are culturally ingrained. (Source: the anthropology textbook that I should be studying right now. Whoops.) The she comes out with this gem: "...Wouldn't a more truly feminist position seek to recognize those hormonal differences and promote protection for women from the kind of ignorance that causes them harm?" Sure. Let's start with protecting women (and men, for that matter) from abstinence-only sex education. Wait, that's not hormonal differences. How about: "Girls, men have testosterone. You have some too, just not as much. Women have estrogen." There, ignorance on hormones solved.

Then she brings up HPV, but neglects to mention the vaccine. I know there is one; I've gotten two of the three shots and they hurt like hell, so I know I didn't dream about it. Also, "Physically, young women are getting clobbered by STDs with potentially deadly results." I can change one word in that easily without changing the truthfulness: "Physically, young people are getting clobbered by STDs with potentially deadly results." 'Cause unless all of those women are gay, they had to get it from a guy (who probably got it from a girl, who got it from a guy, who got it from a girl...). And guess what: men die too, and it's just as awful as when a woman does. And, while it won't stop some STIs (which is the preferred term nowadays), teaching kids to use a condom will slow the spread of many of them.

"Your partner. What happened to your dearly beloved? He - and she - disappeared with coed dorms and the triumph of reproductive health ideology." No, he disappeared with my belief in love, which vanished long before I moved into a dorm, or was taught anything about sex besides the fact that you can get diseases from it. And honestly, what's wrong with experimentation? If both people consent, are disease free, and protect themselves from an unwanted pregnancy, why does it matter?

"At Duke University recently, Stepp asked how many in her audience of about 250 would like to bring back dating. Four out of every 5 raised their hands." That's called a leading question. It presupposes that dating is gone - which it isn't. Did Stepp ask how many people had had casual sex, or been on a date within the last week/month/year?

"It would seem that young people are not hook-up machines, but are human beings who desire real intimacy and emotional connection." Duh. We also like to feel good. From all I've been told, sex feels pretty damn good. Why can't you want both?

I'm tired. I'll deal with the other article tomorrow.